1. Labelling/Self-fulfilling prophecy (Social approach)
Explanations of crime
Labelling/Self-fulfilling prophecy
(Social approach)

2. Learning outcomes: (AC3a)
You will be able to:
Make at least two positive and two negative evaluation points about the SLT explanation of crime
Describe the SFP/Labelling explanation of crime
Make at least two positive and two negative evaluation points about the SFP/Labelling explanation of crime
Describe at least two similarities and two differences between the two explanations

3. Labelling
When something is expected of an individual by others it becomes true

4. The problem is that if someone is given a label…
They may well live up to that label!

5. Society may label people according to education, parents, race, social class etc.

6. The effect of labels/labelling:
Labels can affect an individuals self concept (how we see ourselves) and lead to SFP Labels can affect the way others treat us and may lead to SFP Society may label us according to the way others treat us and this may lead to SFP

7. Labelling is linked to SFP because ...
We become what people expect us to become ...
… so a negative label predicts a negative behaviour

8. Smith and Mackie (2000) define SFP as ...
“The process by which one person’s expectations about another become reality by eliciting behaviours that confirm the expectations”.

9. Is this true of you?
Mondays child is fair of face, Tuesdays child is full of grace, Wednesdays child is full of woe, Thursdays child has far to go, Fridays child is loving and giving, Saturdays child works hard for his living, And the child that is born on the Sabbath day Is bonny and blithe, and good and gay.

10. According to Jahoda (1954)
Males born on Wednesday had a significantly higher arrest rate (22%) than males born on Monday (6%)

11. Behaviour in itself is not criminal; it only becomes criminal when society labels it so (e.g. graffiti, cannabis use, homosexuality)
“A label overrides other characteristics e.g. a mother, or worker, so the individual becomes known as a ‘deviant’”. Becker (1963)

12. Self Fulfilling Prophecy
Is set
Expectation
Prophecy is fulfilled

13. Some supporting evidence:
Rosenthal and Jacobson (1968) studied self-fulfilling prophecy in a classroom
Teachers were allowed to overhear a conversation at the beginning of the year that identified 20 children in the class as ‘late developers’ about to ‘bloom’; the teachers believed this was based on an IQ test, but it was random
At the end of the year, those 20 children did indeed have improved IQ scores, and continued to for 2 years
The ‘prophecy’ came true because the teachers responded differently to them (more feedback etc).

14. Some supporting evidence:
Snyder et al. (1977) -
When male participants were told to get acquainted with a female assistant on the phone, what they were told about her affected their treatment of her, despite never having met; some were told she was attractive, others were told she was not
When the male participant believed the female was attractive, he was more friendly and sociable towards her
When he told she was not, the males responded in an ‘aloof’ manner
This demonstrated that their treatment of the women was self-fulfilling, because when they were responded to with friendliness, they were more friendly in return

15. Applying the theory to criminal behaviour(remember DOA)
Labelling
An observer’s beliefs about and expectations of a person or group (based on the label assigned to them) influences their social interactions, and therefore elicits or creates the expected behaviour. (Merton, 1948)
Stereotyping
The observers beliefs are based on their schemas or stereotypes relating to that group or individual
They will tend to notice more, and even seek behaviour that conforms to their expectations, and ignore that which doesn't. This acts as reinforcement of their opinion (selective social interaction)

16. Factors which affect how SFP works ...
It works better IF
More than one person holds the same expectation
When those expecting someone to behave in a certain way, and those behaving are not familiar to each other
The expected behaviour is not very different from the individuals normal behaviour
The expectation is negative
It does not work IF
The person who expects the behaviour of the individual is of low power

17. Application of SFP to criminal/anti-social behaviour
When observers expect anti-social/criminal behaviour (based on a belief), they seek confirmation of this belief in observed behaviour
The observed will then behave in anti-social/criminal ways due to the encouragement provided for it, and their negative self-belief (that they are not capable of better behaviour)
The pressure to conform to expectations, and the feeling that any pro-social behaviour is ignored means any effort to change is pointless

18. Evaluation of SFP as an explanation for criminal activity
Strengths
Supported by research evidence - Rosenthal and Jacobson (1968) and Snyder (1977); in addition, Madon’s study (2004) highlights the strong influence of negative expectations
Labelling/SFP can be used to explain recidivism; if an individual returns home on release from prison with the label of criminal, society will react to this label and treat the individual accordingly - this could mean a lack of opportunities for employment, which may result in a need to return to crime

19. Evaluation of SFP as an explanation for criminal activity
Limitations
Impossible to test experimentally because of ethical issues – why do you think this might be?
Studies show a link between expectations and outcomes, but a correlational link is not the same as a causal link
Ignores the role of biology and learning in criminal behaviour (reductionist)